Monday, February 11, 2013

Women in the Infantry?

I first need to begin this post with a disclaimer. Not because of any offensive or controversial subject matter but because I have failed to achieve the proper mindset necessary for 'attacking' this kind of subject.

A good friend of mine, who knows the most intimate details about my opinion on this matter, read my draft copy of this post and said, "Jim! Get angry! Let the hate flow through you!" So, I walked down to my local convenience store and bought a 12 of PBR in order to tap into my inner Clint Eastwood (GET OFF MY LAWN!). I then assembled a list of tracks I deem necessary for pushing me to the Dark Side, which may or may not have worked..

So..

Last week I had the opportunity to sit down with a diverse group of people to discuss the new Department of Defense mandate that the military open up billets in combat units to women. The discussion was pretty lively, if not completely one sided. The main (if not only) proponent for the addition of women into combat roles was Martha McSally. On the other side were several women, to include Retired USMC Gunnery Sgt. Jessie Jane Duff, and then myself, the lone male in the group.

Before I get into the meat of my perspective on this particular issue I want to make a couple of things clear. The first is that women have encountered combat in the past decade, just like the rest of the force, and served admirably. On a more personal level my mother, aunt, grandmother and one of my female cousins have all stepped up, put on a uniform at some point during a time of war. I also come from a long line of war fighters, more specifically Infantryman. In more recent history, my father was a Marine and wounded twice in Vietnam, my grandfather was in the second wave of Marines to land on Iwo Jima, my other grandfather was a career Air Force Officer. Serving in WWII, the Berlin Airlift, Korea, and Vietnam.

In short, while only two family members (from either side) have made a career of the military, I can trace my lineage to every American War dating back to the French and Indian and to European conflicts even further back in history. I myself was a Sgt in the Marine Corps Infantry and the phone call to my father after rating a Combat Action Ribbon was one of the proudest moments of my life. I had managed to carry on the war fighter legacy for another generation.

All of that to say: Women entering the Infantry is a hot button issue for me, not as an abstract policy decision, but on a very personal level.

I see this as an attempt to create social progress or make a social statement at the expense of those who put their lives on the line.

Pure and simple, it's nothing short of self promotion... which is ironic given that Infantry units abhor the concept of the individual.

It is preached to the point of mantra that tightly knit teams win wars, while individuals get people killed.

Let's break this down.

1. This is unfair to women.

Plain and simple, if you admit women into the Infantry, you must ask them to be men. This is completely unfair, as women are not physically just smaller men - they are completely different. Now, this is not the same as equality in society - that is a completely separate issue.

In society writ large there are examples of these physical differences. One of these is the Olympics, where there are separate events for both men and women. As Ms. Duff pointed out during our discussion, women have 50% less upper body strength, and 25% less lung capacity. Because of this reality, the physical standards for women in the military are significantly and justifiably lower. The Infantry itself is a lot like your university's football team. They're a bunch of mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, testosterone charged, physical machines (to be clear I say this out of love). These men didn't join the Infantry because the uniforms were cool or they wanted money for college. They joined to push themselves to the limits of human endurance, and well, because over the past 10 years were promised a chance to take a shot at another human being... legally.

Do you really want your daughter hanging out with men who have that mentality?

Additionally, you are opening up the door to a world of backlash as well. The Army has already mandated that not only will women attend Ranger School, but any who are dismissed must be justified to the highest level of command. This is precisely the kind of treatment that creates resentment and makes it harder for women to co-exist in the military with men.

2. The Infantry as a sub-culture.

BLUF: The Infantry exists for one purpose and that is to kill people.

Anyone can try to paint a rosier picture of what grunts do; nation build, hand out soccer balls, etc. but, when it comes down to it, throughout history Infantrymen have hunted down the enemy and killed him.

Intrantrymen are not diplomats, negotiators, social crusaders, or explicit advocates of human rights. They are the men who are sent in when diplomatic channels fail, in order to influence other groups of people through the application of violence. In all other segments of society, except in criminal elements, violence is preached against, avoided, and except in the rarest of circumstances, illegal. In an Infantryman's world, violence is actively sought out, and participating in a gunfight is not only sought out, it is a standard by which you are judged. As this is a primal kind of existence all things are judged by whether or not they make you more effective in combat. That is to say, does this policy enable you to take life more effectively, or does it put you and your fellow grunts more at risk of losing your own. Everything boils down to exploitation of weakness and preservation of your own. Needless to say this is very different from the day-to-day in everyday America.

As a result, the Infantry is probably the least politically correct and most exclusive group in America. It's allowed to be, it HAS to be. This is not to say that Grunts are sexist men who drive fancy cars and are haggled by the Paparazzi. Fairness in the Infantry is pure. It is simple. It is determined by how effective your unit is on the battlefield. The more elite the unit, the more 'unfair' the entry standards are, and the more 'unfair' the fight is for the enemy. Anything which hinders your ability to dominate your battlespace is stripped out. As an individual you are constantly evaluated to determine your worth, more specifically, whether or not you are a liability. We eat our own. If it is determined that a new member is weak or undependable, every attempt is made to get rid of that person by any means necessary. Additionally, these screening methods, which would boil the blood of activists across the country, has a very unique effect which isn't really witnessed in any other institution. All races and creeds present understand what is at stake and all stand together because you're held to the same murderous standard. There's a saying, "All Marines are Green" and unlike anywhere else, in Grunt units it's true.

Why is it important not to alter this equation?

Because it's a methodology that works... and has to work, because if it doesn't then we no longer have the most effective fighting force in the world. Additionally, it is inherent to the existence of Infantry units that they are able to police their own. This mandate is the exact opposite of this, and opens the door for groups, many of whom have no association with the military at any level, to determine the correct way for such units to conduct themselves.

More to the point, if the calculus is altered, our people, my peers, die. So, if we have the most capable and lethal ground combat force on the planet, it isn't broken. If it isn't broken, what are we trying to fix?

3. There is a marked difference between 'Combat' and 'Sustained Ground Combat Operations'

Combat in its simplest definition entails that shots are exchanged between two hostile groups. This can last a few seconds, minutes, or hours. Combat, or what is commonly known as a 'firefight' can occur at any point. Typically non-infantry units who are attacked, seek to respond with force to get away from the attack, or 'out of the kill zone'. They do not seek to necessarily close with and destroy hostile forces. In essence, the less time engaged with the enemy, the better.

Sustained ground combat operations , as conducted by infantry units, are quite the opposite. If an infantry unit encounters hostility in an area, their focus becomes driving the enemy from that area. Unlike non-Infantry units, Grunt units will keep going back until the threat is eliminated. This means days, weeks or months away from any kind of comfort, while you constantly move around looking for a fight. Fundamentally, it is an assertion of dominance and control. It is a primal an animalistic existence. This kind of attitude is shunned and feared in today's main stream society. However, in warfare it is inherent that you act this way, because if you do not, your opponent will. Once a specific area is under control, leadership then finds a new area in which to repeat the process. Infantrymen do this day in and day out for the length of their deployment. In the "War On Terror" these types have deployments have ranged from 7 to 18 months in duration.

Now, take this attitude which is completely contrary to societal norms, and do it with a series of factors which make degrade your ability to be effective. First, strap on around 100lbs of additional equipment, thereby making you slow, cumbersome, and constantly uncomfortable. Next, remove a regular meal schedule, which makes you weak. Finally, only sleep for a couple hours at a time, usually in your gear and when it's too hot to move, as many Infantry units operate mainly at night. All of this reaches a crescendo when it's combined with the ever present reminder that any mistake you make can cost your peers life and limb. This is not your typical day job, and it is not a place for social experimentation. As if it's some kind of lab set up to 'see' if certain people can hack it or not. This environment is the complete opposite of that. It is the ultimate crucible of human physical and emotional endurance, which only the most capable people should apply.

4. It can physically break off even the strongest men

I will never be as proud as I was about serving as a Grunt in the Marine Corps. However, it was the most physically taxing and damaging thing I have ever done to myself. To this day I still wake up every morning, and have a nice 'walk down memory lane'. When I look in the mirror I see the scars on my body left by a reconstructive surgery on my shoulder, at least once a year my back seizes up because I have compressed vertebrae. I'm not yet 31 and sometimes feel like an old man. On the same note, I have never been a physical slouch. At my peak physical conditioning I weighed in at 170 pounds, could do 26 pull ups and ran 3 miles in under 18 minutes. However, even in that kind of shape, the sheer magnitude of the equipment I had to carry around took its toll. An easy day was carrying around half my body weight. At times, it was significantly more.

To put it metaphorically (and to draw on a previous one), everyone should be afforded the opportunity to go to Ohio State, but for obvious reasons not just anyone can be on the football team.

5. My Biggest Fear

Plain and simple, that standards are dropped to allow 'social progress.' To me, this will mean nothing short of a marked drop in effectiveness on the battlefield, which in turn results in needless deaths of our people. Let's be real for a second, whomever we're fighting could care less about whether or not we have women on the battlefield. Their only concern is how easy it is to kill our people. What I truly believe is that those who are proponents of Women in the Infantry are actively attempting to change the culture of the Infantry, because for one reason or another, it disgusts them. Infantrymen are notoriously aggressive, combative, politically incorrect and downright offensive at times. This is precisely the type of attitude that the job demands. I don't tell anyone else how to live their life or how to do their job, and what I resent is the line of people coming in and telling me how to do mine. Furthermore, if you look at American culture, the 'beta' male has become the norm, or even the social ideal. While James Dean, or John Wayne used to be the 'ideal' American male, we now have Justin Bieber and Justin Timberlake. Gone is the man's man.

This is no accident.

On the flip side, the Infantry is an old school, 'man's man' environment. Furthermore, the majority of Americans have never even met an Infantryman, let alone know what it takes to make a unit effective in combat.

Yet, these people are determining the fate and direction of such units.

Some .45% of Americans have served in the War on Terror, and I promise you it's vastly different than any video game you've ever played. But, what I do know, is that once groups such as NOW, the ACLU or anyone else starts going through the 'dirty laundry' of Infantry units (such as how they enforce discipline...for those who have been there, you know what I'm talking about), I have no doubt that they will demand, and get, 'change.' If and when this does happen, you will see the wholesale destruction of more than 200 years of tradition which has separated our Armed Forces from those of the rest of the World.

183 comments:

You're offended?? Well then, why do not see that you don't have the emotional skills to SUCK IT UP?? This was the most professional take on the issue of women in combat that I have ever heard. 99% of the other infantrymen, would not have and WILL NOT be as professional, sensitive, and politically correct. Great article! From a man who doesn't care about appeasing the sensitive.

He's spot on. And I speak with both enlistment and a commission as a US Army infantryman. Just a crude, but very true illustration with real world meaning. An infantryman can "water a tree" and get back to whatever he was doing in under 60 sec, and all the privacy he needs is to find a spot nobody's gonna be walking in and turn his back. A woman requires magnitudes of order more privacy as well as time. Sorry. Combat support roles I can suffer. Combat, no.

Another thought. Once women are "allowed" in combat, what happens if we ever need a draft again? Are women excluded from draft into combat roles? If so, imagine the screams from (the lawyers of) moms whose sons are put in harm's way. So is Buffy the cheerleader going to Ft Benning for 11-Bush training to satisfy THAT social tummy-ache??

I'm a woman and a former Army officer and the author is exactly right. If you're offended, you're an idiot. Even if you could develop the upper body strength to carry all the stuff, the impact on your less-dense bone structure will cause stress fractures and ultimately render you combat ineffective. Yes, when called upon, women can and have performed well in a firefight, but in protracted combat operations - no way.

Why are you offended just because you are a woman? I am also a woman and I agree with this writing. We are not physically the same as men and should not try to be one. Yes, SOME women are able to do this, but not the majority. Do not bring down our military just to get women into a certain area of it. Look at what has happened here at home with education, jobs, etc. since these "groups" have decided that the standards need to be lowered for certain groups. If a woman wants to be in the Infantry, then she should be allowed to try to meet the requirements, but those requirements should not be lowered to meet her ability.

I'd offer you some cheese to go with your whine, but I'd have to put down the 70 pound dumbbells I'm carrying first. Unless, of course, you'd like to take them off the hands of this 65 year old "former active duty Marine?"

You don't have to be a military expert to know that war is a business where the last guy standing is the winner. Adding women may "seem" like a good idea but the fact that it comes out of Dc it probably isn't. Also what is next? First gays, then women. I'm almost sixty. Can I go too?

Some of you have watched too many epidsodes of "Army Wives." There are places for women in the miliatry to serve, but the Infantry is not it. Why do you want to get others killed? The enemy is doing that without your help. Join up. But not to jump into the trenches. Women are too important to be lost on the battlefield unnecessarily. There are too many high profile positions that women can do much better than men that do not require them to compete against the enemy and the men in their unit and that is what it boils down too. You gals know we are always having to prove ourselves. Men are usually accepted. So why not step into a position that requires some common sense decision making. That is where women will shine. Put down the gun and get out of the trenches, girls.

Your offended? How? He is saying what needs to be said. It is true. If you disagree how about you go on a 10 mile hike after being up for 3 days and set up a patrol base or a defense. Then 2 hours after your rest cycle you get hit and have to relocate your pb. Then your on security or patrol for the next 6 hours and that continues for a week. You don't know what pain is if you haven't been in an extremely physically demanding job. By extremely physically demanding, I mean a job that will push you to pass out. Every single day.

I weigh 170, i run a 1900 minute 3 mile, i life all the time, im in really good shape. Yet in the infantry I get my ass handed to me with all the gear I have to carry half the time. You think you a "woman" weighing 120-140 pounds can carry a full combat load the same distance as me? Get the fuck out of here. The DAY women are allowed in the infantry is the day I will stop caring for my job the way I do and I won't re-enlist. Because I will already be dead. And its a harsh way to put it, but I don't trust women especially in the infantry. I've worked with them and they are lazy when it comes to extreme physical labor. They literally can't even keep up with infantry marines on a pt run. They aren't meant for it.

I am a woman and I agree, not only are we proven to have less physical strength, but we by nature are more emotional creatures. Killing people is a dangerous perfession, which requires you to leave those emotions at home and do your job. I'm not sure if women can do that. If you think about it, same thing could apply to as why we havent had a women president. I'm not saying women are less than men cause I sure as Hell would love to see a man push a watermelon out of a 10cm whole lol but we are different and like all people some are made better for certain jobs than others.

This had to have been written by a man, or an abused woman who hasn't lived up to her potential and uses whiny excuses to get her way and twist men around her finger. Everyone has emotions, and everyone can control those emotions. Whether or not a person is more emotional is up to the individual, not their sex. People who say otherwise are just making excuses for being illogical themselves and for not putting in the effort to keep themselves in check. Women like you are frankly some of the most annoying people on the planet. Stop using your vag as an excuse for being an overemotional whiner who doesn't push herself like so many little girls in the ME generation.

Very well written. I am a woman and from a strong military family. My dad served 22 years in the navy and my brother in the Marines as well as grandfathers, uncles, etc. We continue to make issues that are NOT social issues into social issues and suffer the consequences. This one will be at the expense of our freedom.

You're offended?? Well then, why do not see that you don't have the emotional skills to SUCK IT UP?? This was the most professional take on the issue of women in combat that I have ever heard. 99% of the other infantrymen, would not have and WILL NOT be as professional, sensitive, and politically correct. Great article! From a man who doesn't care about appeasing the sensitive.

Someone needs to teach politicians CRM. The potential to injure combat readiness due to the administrative issues inherent to this subject is too great to be acceptable. its like playing hot potato with an armed mortar round. It may not blow up but likeliness of a catastrophic event is too significant.

Correct. That is exactly their motive. It's part of destroying American culture and strength. This is all directed from the Kremlin and is being implemented by the hard left 5th column. People who don't get this yet are sorely ignorant about what is happening in America. It is a Marxist revolution right under their noses.

I'm so thankful for everyone who serves & I admit that I wouldn't cut it in the infantry. Since this is a reality now - I don't think standards should be dropped at all - for a man or a woman because that risks lives. So that is disappointing to find out that is what would happen & I agree would create resentment for both sexes. *As a woman* - I would rather fail then have standards lowered just so I could "succeed." On another note - there are amazon women out there that could hang physically and mentally as a man, though I realize they are rare.

As far as this statement: "Do you really want your daughter hanging out with men who have that mentality?" Well I don't like hanging around emotional women b/c I'm not one & wouldn't have a problem.

I don't come from a offensive perspective but really objective - so women shouldn't be so sensitive. I am a "conservative feminist" & I know women meet & outperform men in a whole host of areas but they get get blocked by a glass ceiling. I won't speak on what I don't know b/c I don't have a military background - but I wonder if there is a proportionate # of women strategists in the armed forces. I work in IT and the ratio of women to men is laughable and they have a hard time advancing because guys don't think they have what it takes intellectually. So I say - don't lower the standards in *any* area and you will see some amazing women step up.

Bizarre and selfish: we are going to jeopardize the effectiveness of combat units so a very few females ... can prove something to themselves? Not worth the effort. What the writer did not say is how hard it is to get and keep a unit's cohesion together. Women in a combat unit will quickly destroy that. Bad idea.

I understand your point of view (especially as both a former grunt and current IT geek!). The midpoint would be to allow women who both want to serve in this role AND can handle unadulterated requirements. But that ignores the point that a women's very presence alters the dynamic. It's like trying to measure something when the very act of measuring alters it.

Nope, the potential costs are far too high to satisfy the desires of a very few members of society. Women are not hobbits, but to steal a line from a LotR movie, "war is in the provenance of men."

With the necessary disclaimer that I am a woman and in the Army, I can appreciate a well-thought out argument on this topic. Women have stepped up and done their duty in war, and they have surely experienced the fight; a few have even been unofficially attached to infantry units and closed with and destroyed the enemy (yes, including killing people to the emotional commenter above). While I accept that women are physically weaker than men, I cringe at the over-eagerness of women to demean their own gender. What I see in these comments is an overcompensation by women to try and prove that they "get it" and even go beyond the situation at hand and argue that extreme feminism is ruining society and women shouldn't be in difficult situations. Women are not naturally more emotional or mentally fragile- our society has simply conditioned us that it is okay for girls to cry, but boys should suck it up. Bottom line? There are women that are capable of handling the burdens of an infantryman's life, and arguing that men cannot accept them is quite frankly demeaning to men. This is a profession- if your buddy on your left and your right can save your life in combat, it doesn't matter what gender you are. I understand the that combating the social issue of gender inequality by placing women into line infantry units is not the best first step, but never forget that women are making tough choices every day, killing the enemy, and executing the mission. PS- sequestration and budget cuts will injure combat readiness much more than any amount of women placed into combat roles.

"There are women that are capable of handling the burdens of an infantryman's life, and arguing that men cannot accept them is quite frankly demeaning to men."

Nice strawman or is that a strawwoman you knocked over. Nowhere in the article does it state men cannot accept women simply because they are women. The article points out the physical limitations that women face that would prove to be too much to over come in the field. So the fact that women can't physically meet the standards set for the average infantryman, proves they aren't "capable of handling the burdens...."

If you would read the article carefully, you would see that what he is talking about is his fear that introduction of women will change the dynamic of the infantry unit. He is not worried about those few women who could meet the physical standards and and accept the culture, he is worried about those that will not. And this worry stems from his perception that this will reduce the effectiveness of the combat unit and result in unnecessary deaths. And he makes a cogent case for his perspective. You, on the other hand, are spouting PC crap.

As an aside, the almost inevitable outcome of this decision will be legal challenges that will result in a requirement for women to register for the draft. And if the sh*t really hits the fan in the future women will be drafted and sent to front lines whether they want to or not. This won't just be some option for a small number of career-minded women who will be able to say whether they want to be in the infantry or not, it will be all our daughters and sisters who will be forced to do it whether they want to or not. Is that really what we want as a society? Is it worth that to satisfy the handfull of women who actively seek that kind of "opportunity"? Iam glad I am getting old. I fear the world is descending into a hellish place.

Female Engagement Teams (FET) are attached at times to Infantry units....those Units S.O.P's are to not become decisively engaged with the enemy. Ive never seen, nor heard of any unit that Had FET's attached that Were seeking a fight in the Find Fix Finish mode....they are conducting a different type of patrol....Your pulling the, "Woman are basically Infantry now argument" out of your Ass. Secondly Countless university studies, scientific research, academic articles and numerous data bases full of information that counters your argument of societal structured gender roles. Woman are natural Tribe builders. They seek consensus and build bonds among people. This is their beauty, this is what attracts us males to them.

As far as the FETs and Lionesses....I would argue that they have had some impact on operations with grunt units, but not on a sustained basis. Putting women Marines through that training and then out as attachments did nothing to make them grunts. They lived a taste of the ops life, but they were not part of the other side of the coin. They did not have the constant worry of the grunts providing security for them so they could do their mission. They also didnt have to deal with the problems of just their presence presents to grunts that are stressed beyond belief and just the smell of the sweat of an American woman can deride reason in that mindset.All these folks pushing for this equality, disgusting. They hi-five on the backs of the Corporals, Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains that will have to truly deal with the implementation of this ridiculous "equality".

The simplest reply to this woman's post is this. What would be a more effective and lethal fighting force; an all male army or an all female army? Answer: an all male army. If an all male fighting force is more effective then how does adding women to the team make it better? It doesn't. Is an all male football team better than an all female football team? Yes! Then how does adding even one woman to that team make it better? It doesn't. If women want to fight in ground combat there is a simple solution. Just like sports segregate women from men (basketball has the WNBA instead of forcing the NBA to accept women). Women should be given their own, female only combat brigades, regiments, etc. This would eliminate all of the problems of pregnancy, romantic relationships, sexual harassment, etc. Yet nobody has proposed this because they know that women, as a group, would be a disastrous fighting force.

#1: The Olympics, the NFL, the NHL, etc. are sports not designed for the killing of the opponent. They are competitive and highly specialized divisions. They are also private institutions. Just like convents and monasteries, or all-girls or all-boys schools, they are allowed to be restricted by gender.

I think you generalize when you say that all Soldiers in the Infantry are knuckle-dragging "Grunts." There are plenty of highly professional, thoughtful, self-aware Infantrymen. If not, than the Infantry can only benefit from the cool, detached, feminine touch of a woman sniper for example. The idea that women cannot kill should be scoffed at.

Your daughter might grow up to be a stripper dear author, and she might hang out with men like that in a different venue. Not your choice. The impression that there will be a different standard is one that would happen regardless, because in your eyes you don't want women in the combat arms. You make us choose between battling our way in, and NEVER being allowed in.

#2: This whole argument in the second point is moot. It just talks about how Infantry have the right to eat their own if they aren't making the cut. What in this paragraph truly argues against women being allowed in? One can still attempt to be Infantry in the new rules, and the current Infantrymen are welcome to attempt to break the spirits of the new recruits. It happened at West Point, and in the Armed Forces in ADA or FA Branches. It is not a new tactic. Please, author, I invite your hazing. BUT be fair with your hazing. If she is making the cut along with skinny McInfantry boy, than leave it be. Don't make an attack based purely on gender.

#3: Again. Okay. "This environment... is the ultimate crucible of human physical and emotional endurance, which only the most capable people should apply." Alright, Mr. Author, you haven't convinced me why women should be completely forbidden to apply. Just prove they can't hack it in the training. YOU can stop a bad Soldier who risks lives and the lives of his or her teammates. You know that many atrocities in war have been committed by all-male units. Even the most physically resilient people have mental and emotional breaking points. There is evidence women have better emotional strength.

#4: The Infantry ISN'T a FOOTBALL TEAM! Stop comparing it to a sport where the goal is NOT to KILL the other team, since that is one of your hinging points, author! See there is something that a lot of people dismiss when they see a large man and a small woman (I am of small stature). In hand to hand combat for sport, yes the man will always win. But in hand to hand combat to the death? The most vicious, dirtily-fighting, cheating, sneaky bastard will win that fight. In the back of my head I know if my life is threatened by a man, even one close to my size he might be stronger than me, and SO I have already concluded my violence of action must be beyond all that which any ordinary person would expect. I am mentally prepared to go all the way with that, because I am a small person who does not expect a friendly large person to always be near by to save my life.

#5: Yes, yes. You are AFRAID of the 'feminization' of America. Because everyone knows that feminine traits are the true sign of a dirty, commie bastard. And if there are women who can disrupt the bro-hesion of all-male units, than surely the fall of man is not far behind.

I would like to finish that you could have at least dwelt longer on the physical portion, or the fact that womyn can disrupt male unit cohesion with better examples other than that you WERE Infantry, and that your family WAS in combat. Your great ancestors also served in a military where women were not formally allowed. Would you like us to go back in time, to an age where women were only nurses? Would that make America strong again? I am disgusted with how weak your argument truly is.

Sorry, I think the phrase "cool, detached, feminine touch of a woman sniper" disqualifies the post. I've been a grunt and was in Iraq. I also appreciate women. My mother was a professional, as is my one-and-only wife of 25+ years, and I have two daughters, one of whom is a firefighter. But I don't think that from behind your pink and bedazzled laptop you don't really understand what is being asked.

While sports and combat are not the same, they share many characteristics. First and foremost is that they both require an enormous amount of teamwork. Each person has a specific job and task. Why do you think they call the point guard, the quarterback or the catcher, the "general" on the field? While you are correct that sports is not combat, the camaraderie and unit cohesion is critical in both activities.

Anything that interferes with that effectiveness degrades performance. The infantry in specific, and the military as a whole, are not a "social experiment" for politically correct do-gooders to try new things. The military's job is to find and kill the enemy. While we try to whitewash that sentiment with other tasks, the final mission is to kill the enemy. When you put social needs above that primary mission, you will lead to people being killed.

The physical issues also remain significant. As mentioned, women, as a whole, cannot keep up with men. That's why you have men's sports and women's sports. Further, a man can survive without support for a much longer time than a woman. If you place a woman in a sustained combat role, they will physically break down much earlier than a man, again decreasing the effectiveness of that unit.

Bottom line is that woman in combat is an extremely dangerous policy for our nation to pursue. It will lead to more casualties.

And tangentialromantic just how long have you served and with whom? Do you even know how one person not holding up their end can destroy the whole team?It isn't some game that is being played on the battlefield, it is a life and death deal. No one calls time out to rest or sleep. Social engineering has no place on the battlefield or in the infantry.

The agitation for women in combat does not come from the enlisted ranks. It comes from women officers who want a "ticket punched" to help with promotion. There were a lot of male officers with similar intent in Vietnam. Maybe even in Iraq.

"#4: The Infantry ISN'T a FOOTBALL TEAM! Stop comparing it to a sport where the goal is NOT to KILL the other team, since that is one of your hinging points, author! See there is something that a lot of people dismiss when they see a large man and a small woman (I am of small stature). In hand to hand combat for sport, yes the man will always win. But in hand to hand combat to the death? The most vicious, dirtily-fighting, cheating, sneaky bastard will win that fight."

You are simply delusional. Most women weight little more than dumbbells I can press single-handed and I am not Hercules. You assume you opponent does not know how to use his superior strength and mass to quickly slam you into the ground and crack your skull like coconut. Unless you have an advantage in weaponry, your odds of prevailing against a man who is larger than you by the average spread is astromically infintessimal. This is borne out by the proven fact that most male novices can quickly and easily dispatch most female martial artists with decades of training. It is often said that Quantity has a Quality all its own. Size also has a Skill all it's own.

I'm a woman, and I'm pretty damned proficient with a gun. And I'm in decent shape. But my back and shoulder start to ache when I carry around a couple boxes of 9mm ammo for awhile.Most women would not be able to cut it in the infantry. I don't think it will be anything to really worry about if the army doesn't lower their standards to accommodate females. Most of them will wash out in boot camp. Problem solved. If politically correct activists force them to be pushed through in the name of "fairness", a lot of people are going to get killed.

Dear sorry no.. your physical inadequacy proves nothing about the general status of women. Neat story though and then you found $5 in your pocket? And what exactly do you do fer a livin?

I don't really agree that women should be integrated with all-male units, but the Israelies did something like this and their female infantry guards the borders. The IDF has a strong sense of national service, and do train women and have women instructors for snipers, tanks, and as fighter pilots.

But I don't know if our country is ready for this, you know, for readiness issues ect.

The Israeli units that incorporated females into their infantry units suffered 3x's the casualties as all male infantry units. They've already been down this path and learned the lesson of needless deaths the hard way. Needless to say they no longer integrate women in to the infantry units. They do however, have all female units that do things like pull guard duty. Maybe we should learn from the mistakes of others instead of being dead set on making the same costly mistakes.

I'm afraid ur an idiot. I'm a airborne infantry, and if u put a women in my platoon she soon will hate life. no one has yet to bring up this point , as sad as it may be, it is a reality. what happens when she has sex with half of her co workers and they all get jealous and fight eaxhothers.. or when she gets pregnant overseas? what happens when someone dies because she couldn't cut it? its gonna be a bad day for her, and any other females in her platoon. from the start there will be discrimination and sexism. your going to lose quality soldiers due to article 15s who very well would ultimately save lives in combat due to a woman who shouldn't have been there in the first place. lady u write about this stuff and cut down the author, but the fact is you have no fn clue what it takes to just survive let alone thrive in our world. so just do everyone a favor and don't fight this fight, u will ultimately be the winner or benifactor. I agree completely with the author, if its not broke don't fix it. letting women in the infantry, let's just say the many, many downsides to it do not come clots to the very few benefits that might come with it. and if ur measuring wheather those benefits belong to men or women, your wrong already. any benefits that come from this should belong to the unit. and I know there would be far more negative effects on the unit then possitive ones if u let women in to the infantry.

Very well put. As a soon-to-be Infantry officer, I worry about this topic every day. This is an attempt by a disconnected government to institute social change for the sake of social change, not combat effectiveness. Thank you for your awesome insight.

Ignoring for a moment the physical argument, here are a couple other things to think about:

- The infantry will cease being the infantry as we know it, from the very first second you hear a handful of female PFCs sounding off in formation.

- Grunt companies will become plagued by issues which traditionally afflicted only pog units, such as romantic squabbles, rumor mills, fraternization, favoritism... What do you think will happen to good order and discipline when the company XO starts banging a female LCpl? Happens all the time, and if you don't think it does, have a chat with someone who has worked at legal.

- Sexual assault in the military is already a huge problem. Putting one female among a platoon of young, aggressive alpha males is courting disaster. Infantry life affords rare glimpses into human nature. Grunts who've been isolated in far off lands, away from women for endless months know exactly what I'm talking about.

I think that there is sometimes among women an urge to strive too hard to prove that they are equal to men. There are obvious physical differences between men and women, ranging from stature to metabolic rates to muscular-skeletal composition, and while it's quite possible that allowing women into combat roles would turn up many women who could make the grade physically, the sheer numbers game at play indicates that a larger number would have to be admitted under unequal physical qualification standards. Those differing standards are already extant in the physical readiness programs of every branch of the US military. My only wish is that if women are allowed into combatant roles (dedicated combat, not occasional firefights), they should have to perform at the same physical standards as the men who inhabit those same roles, with the possible exception of physical size requirements if all other physical readiness standards can be met. While I would easily admit that at age 55, I am not nearly as physically fit as a warrior strong female of age 35, the physical readiness standards for the two are pretty much equivalent (for the Navy at least, which is the branch I'm familiar with), and the same is true for a comparison between a 40 year old male and a 20 year old female. If a 20 year age difference is required for males and females to be physically equivalent on average, how can adding women to these roles NOT be anything but disruptive?

Break it down real simple for you:As a nation we are getting so politically correct that we are becoming a nation of less and less values.> No same sex marriage....For the Gay community: don't be so dam lazy....go find your own institution, create it, and lobby for it, but don't try to steal mine, create your own.> No gay kids in the Boy Scouts ! (Again....make your own version, don't whine your way into mine)> No women in the Infantry !> Get prayer back in school !We need to maintain the values this country was built upon....on some things there should be NO COMPROMISING DAMMIT !

It's unfortunate that many of the above comments were posted by people who approached this post with the foregone conclusion that women in infantry is a good idea (for whatever reason), and from that vantage they seek ways to pick apart the author's points when they could be gaining insight from someone who has done something they have not done.

While in the Navy I spent a couple years as an integrated member of a ground combat team, training among and operating in the field as part of infantry and armor units. I could counter-argue the flaws in the points made by those who posted above, but they would still learn nothing because they have pre-determined their conclusions and would simply refuse to gain new insight once more. They are people who extrapolate from things they know into things they don't know, rather than accepting insight from people who have lived in the places they don't know. If they had been to Mexico but never been to Italy, they listen to an Italian describe his country, rather than learn about Italy they would tell him he is wrong because he is describing a place that is not like Mexico.

I am a female in the Army. Keep the standards, not that they are exceptionally high anyways, and allow those who can meet them serve as they would. While it is inarguable that as a trend females are physically weaker and smaller, there are most certainly exceptions to this, and I know quite a few females who can out PT and out ruck most males. If they can make it and add to the combat effectiveness of the team, don't segregate them out based solely on gender. I am certainly not a proponent of dropping standards or falling into the American trap of giving everyone a gold star. I just don't believe gender should be the sole discriminator. Also, the emotional issues discussed are not for politicians to decide, many males suffer from traumatic encounters long after time served and that is something they learn to live with as combat vets, as females would need to do as well. Everyone makes sacrifices in a time of war, it is up to the individual to decide what they can live with whether they be male or female. Again, these emotional arguments are generalizations.

and I know quite a few females who can out PT and out ruck most males.

Where are thse women? They never seem to be found in front of me at the squat rack or in line behind be when doing dead lifts at the gym. I also never seem to find them passing me on the Hiking Trail for some reason. Where does one find these mythical creatures?

Anonymous said...Since you are referring to PT, i.e. conditioning, and are obviously in great shape, I expect that you can out swim/bike/run each of the below listed women, who typically beat 90% or more of the male competitors in Ironman competitions.

....and not a single one of those women would have a snowballs chance in Hell of out-rucking, out fighting or out-lifting me. People who sucessfully compete is such endurance sports are not built for heavy-duty load carrying and if you can't carry and move a load, you are worthless in a Combat Arms role.

Lets take the first person you list, Natasha Baderman for example. She weights 110lbs. I press 100lb dumbbells. That is one arm. You really think she is going to be able to carry more weight up over a mountain that 185lb, in-shape me? youy think she is going to be able to carry me plus only 40lbs of gear? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I want some of what you are smoking cause it must be some good stuff.

People who compete in Ironman-type competitions are not pack-mule types with great strength, they are endurance competitors who only have to move their frame over long distances. Any body mass that detracts from that is a competitive disadvantage. Look at long-distance runners, the one who win are built like Somalians.

Uhh...Ms. Moron....YOU DO REALIZE THAT IS PRESSING WITH JUST ONE ARM?!? if you don't know the difference between a Barbell and a Dumbbell, you really should consider having your ignorant pie-hole suitured shut before you hurt yourself! Did you bother to think before you post, REALLY??

but you have yet to present a truly viable argument against women serving in combat infantry positions.

You make an ass of yourself by assuming. 1st I am a man and a soldier who served in the Iraq war, not a woman. And your 100 pound dumbbells is pretty pathetic. I put up well above 100 pound dumbbells myself and well over 325 with barbell on bench. I also know a few women that are apparently just as strong as you physically and clearly far stronger than you mentally.

You are the fool, and an ignorant one at that.

You have yet to present anything that would resemble a fact or knowledge based information. Your entire argument is based on insulting others, which only emphasizes your pathetic ignorance and inability to debate, let along present a viable argument in any discussion.

I have been reading your posts for a while, you strike me as a total bullshitter.

Anybody can Google up a fake profile.

What was your MOB Station? What was your PMOS? Where was your PMOS School? Who was the Commander of your Training BDE when you were there? Who was your Company Commander when you were at that school? What were your class dates for your PMOS? What was your MTOE position while deployed and what unit were you deployed with? What were your dates deployed?

And everything you just listed could easily be googled or borrowed from someone, posting it on a forum like this one (with or without a name and "googled" profile) so your point is meaningless. If I wanted to fake who I am I could easily do it.

You post your name as James Richmond, but you could be anyone.

Marky claims he can press 100 pound dumbbells. Maybe, maybe not. There is no proof on a forum like this. You could claim to know him and vouch for him stating that you saw him do it. Again... maybe, maybe not. There is no proof on a forum like this.

Anyone that attempts to prove who they are on a web forum like this is wasting their time. "I am so-and-so therefore my opinion is better than yours". Right

Regarding the above statement " speciman of maleness", I would like to state unequivocally that I am a great specimen of femaleness. I gave birth at home to a 10 pound baby without even a Tylenol after 28 hours of labor. There is no man in the world who can enter this Olympic game. And I surely do not want to compete in a man's games or killing field. There are cerrtain laws of nature that cannot be defied.

I am a woman and the wife of a retired infantryman. I think this is the best written article on this topic yet. I would also like to note that just because a woman CAN do anything a man can does not mean she SHOULD. There is a reason God (or whatever higher being you believe in) created us different. There are somethings that should be left to the man.

I don't understand why/how you can say that, in an ever-changing battlefield and in an ever-changing war, you know what is and what isn't needed by the infantry. Sure, every soldier has his or her experiences, and sure they are all valid. But you have no idea what you will encounter in the future. Fighting is not the only thing the infantry must do/has to do. They are the closest to the 'enemy' and the closest to the public, they need all skill sets to deal with anything that may come at them. That includes the more feminine attribute of emotional intelligence, intuition, and softer demeanor. The Military Police do the same job in many cases and they do just fine with women in leadership positions and on the ground and actually excel amongst their peers. The warrior spirit, training, and physical readiness are all things that must not be sacrificed for 'social experimentation' but if, as you say, 'the toughest man can be broken by war' then perhaps we need better training. Let's not blame a group but change the institution to make it better.

No, first and foremost, they have to be a human pack-mule. If you want the Infantry described in a sentence, it would be killer pack-mules. If you can't move 80-100lbs of s-hit over rugged terrain and arrive with enough stamina to win a fight, the rest fo that stuff you fantisize about is moot, moot, moot.

You obviously don't know what the different parts of the military do. Let's take your example. Yes the Military Police can find themselves taking fire and returning it. They might even have to clear a building. If you tried to take an MP unit and use it to clear enemy infantry out of a city....... you'd have a lot of dead MP's, they just aren't trained or equipped to do what dedicated infantry does. They are trained to do other jobs.

As to why do those people who've been in the infantry think they know what the infantry will encounter in the future...... Well I think if you look at the infantry through history you'd find that modern day infantry don't carry a spatha and a shield but there is a LOT of congruence as to what they have have done throughout history. As long as there is combat and infantrymen the job isn't going to change that much, the tools will but the actual job won't.

The fear of all of us who worry about the effectiveness of our military boils down to this. If we turn the US military into a huge social experiment eventually someone who hasn't done the same with their military is going to eat our lunch because we won't be able to stop them short of using WMD's. Which the same people want us to get rid of.

The biggest issue I have heard raised in the 6 years I was an active duty infantryman is that the new policy also includes a reduced standard of physical requirments for females in the 11 series MOS when compared to their male counterparts. If you lower the standards of the world's premier fighting force in any way you risk lowering their effectiveness. Few of my brothers-in-arms have problems with women in 'their' MOS because of the gender issue. A large part of the argument could be settled if the military brass would simply enforce a uniform 11 series physical fitness requirement instead of promoting a double standard.

Why are the physical fitness standards for women at West Point so much lower than the standards for men? Because if the women were required to meet the same physical fitness standards, the overwhelming majority of those women cadets at West Point would be separated for failing to meet those standards, and leftism/feminism can not tolerate that.

In addition to the ludicrous fantasy that women, like the men, will be humping 100 plus pounds (not counting the M60 machine gun and the radio!) having women and men together in the infantry or any other combat arms unit is incompatible with an effective fighting force engaged in sustained combat operations for months at a time. Maintaining cohesion among men in such a confined environment over a short time is difficult. Adding women to the mix is a guaranteed recipe for deadly disaster. Don't expect any of the military-hating leftists promoting this to ever grasp the problem. They think that the infantry is like working the phones at the Obama/Biden campaign headquarters. There were no problems mixing mean and women there. Ergo, no problems in the infantry, armor and artillery! God, please help us.

Retired Mustang Navy officer here. Started my career as a Hospital Corpsman in a Marine infantry unit and then served as a special operations technician in several Marine Recon units before my commissioning. Women do not belong in the infantry. Period. We're going to destroy the finest infantry fighting forces (Army and Marine Corps) all for the sake of accommodating the one woman out of 100 that may be able to hack the standards as they now stand (and those standards are high for a good reason, as the author points out)? That's insanity, plain and simple.

I respect Martha McSally for her accomplishments, and for putting it on the line up there in the air and on any combat air support missions she may have flown, but they're air operations and of a different physical and mental caliber and type than the AVERAGE, not even the exceptional, infantryman experiences as a regular part of sustained ground combat operations. Any WM with whom I've served would be the first to admit that there's far more to ground combat of an infantry nature than just pulling a trigger. Any dummy can do that. Not every man, nor very many women, has what it takes to do what the trained and motivated infantryman does without pause, day in and day out.

The grunts 40-odd years ago patrolled with rucks that weighed 90 pounds. The skinny, 120 pound Mexican carried the same load as the 225 pound ex-HS DT.Fast forward to OIF. By my observation and confirmation by other grunts, the troops were patrolling with packs of similar weight on top of body armor that weighed 25 to 30 pounds.In the USMC Basic School, late seventies, the female officers were mostly fit, good runners -even a few marathoners. When it came to putting on helmet, boots and port carrying a rifle at an airborne shuffle, none of them could stay in formation.These policies have roots in matters other than military utility.Can see our military performing like the British in Helmand Province or Basra -or, worse still, the Dutch. We've had to learn to fight all over again several times in our history. The cost has always been high.JW

So what happens when a female infantryperson isn't pulling her weight and the "activists" won't let you get rid of her? Or what happens when a female infantry officer is incompetent; only pushed through and into command, to appease the "squeaky wheels"?

1) If women want to serve and CAN pass exactly the same standards then they should be allowed to serve. I actually agree that the long term impacts WILL be more severe on a woman. That is our choice to make.

2) Men in infantry units are the hard-asses. They can pound most others into sand, there are a few women out there that can do so also.

3) I have no use for socialization (feminization) of the military but if we believe in individual choice, accomplishment and effort along with the responsibility then saying NO woman is capable is inaccurate.

4) Unfortunately, I am deeply aware that the politicians and their sycophants in the military brass will do the damage we expect by altering standards, by demanding less capable be admitted and weeping at the 'unfairness' of it all. I don't know the RIGHT solution, but an outright ban isn't it.

Most of us post anonymously because the liberal Left has a nasty habit of finding you and then harassing you with an unending series of lectures, emails and outright "outing" when you use your name and post what you really think about these matters. I'm sure former Sergeant of Marines Webb is probably finding that out at this time. It's kind of a thought-conforming exercise what the Left does in this regard, unfortunately.

I also appreciate the points you make and the perspective you shared, but everybody knows how this will work. The Army, in trying to push women in Ranger units, is already stating that they'll be "normalizing" Ranger and even straight-leg infantry qualification standards. "Normalizing" is Army speak for lowering standards to ensure the average woman -- who lacks the physical bulk and strength of the average man -- can "hack it" in the infantry world. The average woman can't, to be quite honest, and even the 1 out of 100 women that might be able to isn't proof that we should be fooling around with the finest infantry selection, training and utilization system on the face of the planet for the sake of the "one percent" that may be able to physically cut it in just a straight-leg infantry unit, let alone a special operations or special warfare-capable unit.

Additionally, there are a range of societal issues that women in an infantry unit, living with and fighting alongside men in a close quarters situation (and even in a CQB or close-quarter battle) environment will exacerbate. That's just human nature and our human nature hasn't changed since ancient Greece and the dawn of rational thought and logic.

Background for me: enlisted combat vet (vietnam), Cobat Arms Officer (Armor) (peacetime), married to a retired female Colonel (JAG) (my point is that I don't have an issue with women in the Army, nor in combat, but think women in the ground combat arms is unworkable.

1. It's basicly a force effectiveness versus civil rights argument. Those on my side say that the purpose of the ground pounders is to kill and things that improve effectivens are good, those that reduce it are bad. Integrating the Army in '48-'50 increased the number of potential male candidates by 10-15%. A good thing.

2. In order to be a good infantryman, you need to be in great shape. Pretty much, maxing the male PT test. To understand the scaling differences imposed by biology, the female max score at each age grouping is about the same as the male fail, which is in turn 60% of the max. So in order to perform at the infantry standard, females need to nearly double their performance.

3. Let's run the basic numbers. 500,000 person rmy, 15% female = 75k of women. I think 1 in 1000 are both physically capable and want to be infantry. now we're down to 75 female infantry. Now half the Army is not in troop units at any time (schools, teaching, admin assignments, etc). So now we're down to about 40 female infantrypersons. The Army has about 40 combat brigades, so, 1 infantrywoman in each brogade of 4,000, or 1 all female platoon, in one company, in one battalion, in one brigade in the Army? laughable

This drive for female infantry is coming from the Left and by careerist female officers. Make no mistake, it's not about making us a better force.

I commanded an infantry battalion in Desert Storm and afterwards was required to testify to the Congressional Committee considering women in combat units. The analogy I used drew on the summer Olympics being held at that time: what the infantryman does is not like Olympic diving. There is no extra credit for an added degree of difficulty. While there are undoubtedly a few women who can meet the standards, the impact of them on the unit would degrade unit cohesion and that would lead to more and unnecessary casualties.

I am a retired Army infantryman with enlisted and commissioned service in both airborne and mechanized infantry; I held nearly every position from rifleman to infantry battalion executive officer. The author is spot on about both the spartan attitude and the physical requirements of the infantry and the need to retain the male only restrictions. Lest anyone forget, not all men can or want to make the infantry a career field.

Most discussion of physical requirements focuses on the weight of a rucksack and body armor as as a discriminating factor and that could lead to the assumption that women could thrive in mechanized units. If you want to get your butt kicked by an inanimate object, try breaking track on a Bradley, Abrams, or a M109. Try pulling the upper receiver from a M242 Bushmaster to perform maintenance; it takes significant upper body strength and usually results in some extremity getting smashed between the reciever and turret. Loading the main gun ammunition or linked ammo for the coax is a physical workout as well, especially when your have to hand carry it from where the support platoon off-loaded a pallet.

I am slightly above average build and exceeded the maximum APFT requirements for most of my career. I am now 55 and paying for 22 years in the infantry with lumbar and cervical spine problems, bad knees, upper body nerve damage, and significant hearing loss. I made it to retirement without a medical discharge or reclassification; few women's bodies will last long enough in the combat arms to make it to senior leadership positions or retirement.

Women have been in war since time immemorial. Anyone who requires proof need only do a little research to find copious historical facts about female warriors, both individual and organized.I was in for a total of 30 years (10 Reserve 20 Active). I did two tours in Iraq and a so-called "peace-keeping mission" in Bosnia. I endured the same hardships, dangers and demands as my male counterparts. I lived and worked in austere conditions, lifted and carried heavy equipment and never hesitated to assist in the effort to help the enemy die for their country. SCUD launches, mortar attacks, bunker sweeps, minefields and bullets were shared by everyone, regardless of gender. As an S2 NCO, I jumped ahead of my unit in OIF via Black Hawk and Ground Assault convoy to set up forward intelligence operations. I dug hasty defensive positions, set up sectors of fire, and dug my own latrine with my e-tool.

I averaged 70 pushups on the AFPT and I still lift weights even though I'm retired.

Another thing: I hate being the scapegoat for another female's faults. One female screws up, all females get blamed. Males don't suffer the same consequences. Most female Soldiers I knew, carried their weight and served honorably.

Everyone has abilities and limitations, regardless of gender. The problem is that some people just can’t accept women being in wartime life-threatening situations, which is laughable because women around the planet are subjected to danger every damned day of the week.So, if you've never been there, or you're just too boneheaded to give women the fair shake we've earned, shut the fuck up. I’m sick of your bullshit.

After all the selfless service and sacrifice of women in war throughout history, you’d think people would have paid attention, and maybe, a little gratitude.

Thank you for your service, SFC. It's greatly appreciated and, yes, plenty of women have found themselves in a ground combat situation but, as has been pointed out; it's ground combat that wasn't sought out nor consistently engaged in time and time again.

Women break down sooner in almost all types of field environments, for one. As a Navy Hospital Corpsman, I saw this constantly when treating women Marines out in the field in forced-march situations both when they were carrying only a 50lb. sandbag in their backpacks ("deuce gear" at that time, or ALICE pack) or when we loaded down everybody participating in the march with something a bit more substantial, such as 3/4ths of their TO&E complement. As far as the 105-110lbs of load-out the average straight-leg infantryman might have to hump on a regular basis? I never saw a single woman Marine, officer or enlisted, cut it and I frequently saw males fall out in that same situation.

The above is not meant to be a slur against the military acumen or the capabilities of women in carrying out the MOS or officer designator jobs in which they work; it's just a statement on the objective reality of women in an infantry world, not just in an incidental trigger pulling episode. I can put anybody in a fighting hole-cum-fighting-position and put them behind the trigger of their issue weapon. But going out on patrol and slinging lead with the bad guys on a day in and day out basis is a whole different reality. That's not same thing by a long shot.

IOW, I and my Marines went out on patrol on a constant basis deliberately looking to provoke enemy fire. In some cases, in later Marine Recon units in which I served, we went out to deliberately shoot, move and communicate and it was man-killing physical labor as well as "man-killing" in a way with which we're all familiar. We lived in some of the most grueling and intolerable conditions imaginable and each of us knew what it meant if one or the other of us went down, and what we each needed to do to pick up that slack. We don't need an intangible or wild card -- both on a physical as well as psychological and societal level -- introduced into the mix.

Again; thank you for your service, SFC.

Tony G.LCDR, USN (RET)Former Navy Hospital Corpsman Petty Officer First Class; service with Marine infantry, service as a special operations technician in several Marine Reconnaissance units.

Since you are referring to PT, i.e. conditioning, and are obviously in great shape, I expect that you can out swim/bike/run each of the below listed women, who typically beat 90% or more of the male competitors in Ironman competitions.

But funny you mention triathlon. I was an All-Navy triathlete and USA Triathlon All American and was a competitor in many Ironman-distance races, including in Hawaii on a few occasions. I competed across all distances and even won a few race (I was never "beaten" by a woman right up through the half-Ironman distance) and your use of women at Ironman isn't an apples-to-apples comparison of what's experienced in the infantry environment. I also knew PNF personally and attended several of those triathlete training camps she ran out in Solana Beach. I'll say that I was stronger than her on the bike and the run. She killed me in the swim, though.

Triathlon isn't the infantry environment, however. And I don't really believe that because a woman -- or even the male winners at IMH -- can successfully compete at the elite level at triathlon means that she'd be able to successfully transfer those aerobic capabilities (Strength wise? Not even close) to what infantry troops do as a matter of course. Former world heavyweight boxing champion Riddick Bowe, for example, entered Marine Corps Recruit Training and didn't last two weeks.

Picking out the elite of the elite-level female competitors in the sport of triathlon is also a spurious argument. All of us have conceded that, maybe, one woman out of a hundred as the physical capabilities to cut it in a straight-leg infantry unit. Your use of Badmann or PNF -- both of whom are superwomen and most likely one woman out of 100,000 women in terms of aerobic and anaerobic capabilities fails on those grounds.

Really: It's not just a matter of going out and doing some running and swimming, and then carb loading, resting and recovering and going out and doing it again the next day. I can take anybody and train them over time to do that and to do well at the Ironman-distance level. But infantry isn't triathlon and triathlon isn't the infantry.

"Picking out the elite of the elite-level female competitors in the sport of triathlon is also a spurious argument." It is the same spurious argument that you are presenting that women cannot be infantry, because you are so much better than women in your physical conditioning.

You loose all credibility with this statement, "I also knew PNF personally and attended several of those triathlete training camps she ran out in Solana Beach. I'll say that I was stronger than her on the bike and the run. She killed me in the swim, though. "

Aside from the fact that Ironman races are ultimately won in the marathon section, you are now better than PNF?

And in what way did I accuses Tony of anything, other than his claim to run and bike better than the PNF 8 time champion of the Ironman World Championship at her prime? Sorry, that would make him as one of the top triathletes in the world...completely unbelievable.

I would say the Dunning-Kuger poster child award you recieved is what scares you most. I pressume it was you above who chided me on my statement of my ability to Dumbbell Press 100lbs and then cackle about how you personally knew many women stronger than that, wallowing in your ignorance between what a Dumbbell and a Barbell is.

It forces me to ask the simple question: "If you don't know the difference between a Dumbbell and Barbell press, why should we consider anything you post as naught but the prattlings of a moron?

Perhaps you should familiarize youself with the basic terminology of weightlifting before you make a further fool of yourself.

And I don't care how impressed you are with a Female Triathelete who weights 110 pounds. Using that as a predictive basis for load carriage is like trying to predict the flight characteristics of the Space shuttle by putting a Formula One racer into a Wind Tunnel. It's comparing Apples to Hand-Grenades. If you seriously think a 110 pound woman can carry and endure 100lbs of gear, you are smoking some serious high-grade crack.

And in what way did I accuses Tony of anything, other than his claim to run and bike better than the PNF 8 time champion of the Ironman World Championship at her prime? Sorry, that would make him as one of the top triathletes in the world...completely unbelievable.

What part of the phrase "All-Navy Triathelete" did you fail to grasp in his post? That would have made him a world-class Triathelete.

Look, as you so humorously demonstrated up-post, you did not comprehend the difference between a Dumbbell Press and a Barbell Press. Why should we take anything you cut and paste about Triatheletes and Triathelons as accurate? That you would accuse him of lying when he participated in this thread in good faith is simply classless and disgusting.

That is like somebody who doesn't understand the difference between a brake and an accelerator calling a Professional Driver a liar.

Simply put, you are a fool, you are way out of your depth and you are the only person here who can't seem to grasp that fact.

No, the Naval Officer said he could out do her in two of three events in the half-marathon, he didn't say he beat her in a race.

You understand this is the internet and exactly what he said is printed just a few inches up the screen? I have never understood how people could lie in plain sight when the truth is printed in black and white on the same damn page.

You seem to have a problem understanding plain english. You keep arguing about something nobody ever said.

James, how dare you use facts! Don't you understand that you are arguing with some feminazi-gynotroll who is making s-hit up as she goes along? Its obvious to everyone else that she doesn't have a clue what she is bleating about. Notice how she keeps sublty changing her story as her old one gets thinner. If Mary Jane Rottencrotch can't win, she just moves the goalposts a bit more.

You could have responded to my query about your service. I have a contacts in TRADOC so it would be easy to verify what your are saying, particularly who the BDE and Company Comanders for your PMOS and the class dates were.

The combination I gave you would be almost impossible for somebody without military experience to just google more than a part of it up without tripping all over themselves. Some of the info would be pretty obscure.

Does your mommy know you are on her computer this late? Isn't tomorrow a school day or something?

I have a long & varied military career, including infantry, & I won't bore you with my resume.

I saw Col Martha McSally who you reference (ret AF fighter pilot) in a debate with Gen Jack Keane, & she kept arguing past him, claiming women are OK for 'combat' (in general), but Keane kept trying to make the point about the infantry. While women are probably fit physiologically to be pilots (maybe even better?), that doesn't account for the social impact of their presence in their units. Her ignoring Keane's points was telling.

The story that keeps coming to mind was many years ago at Camp Lejeune. I was a young Marine Lieutenant at some function at the O Club, and a young female 2LT (slight of build, thin) was holding forth about how women are equal to men. Another male (about 6'2", 240lbs) made the point that they should finish their drinks & then go outside, whereupon he would carry her around the block & then she could carry him. That shut her up.

It will not be fair until women are assigned to the infantry like men are. The way most are posting is that women should be allowed to volunteer Men are assigned and lots are not volunteers for the infantry.

Nature has it right. For a species to survive a catastrophic event, it has to be fertile. Both sexes. Lose a fertile age woman, it takes one fertile age female to take her place. Lose a fertile age male, and another male can share his reproductive duties. Not socially correct, but neither is the demise of the human race. Scale that to Neanderthals and the indicator, tribe after tribe supports that position

What part of reality do you have such a problem with? I gave you a stone-cold fact regarding primates, which is the type of Animal Humans and Apes are.

Because what non-primates do is irrelevant. humans are primates. Other animals are not comparable because they aren't adapted like we are. Snails are animals, Black Widow Spiders and Preying Mantii are also animals....so what?

We are netiher mollusks or arachnids or insects.....can you grasp that clue?

...and if you think me Darwin, quit trying so hard to win one of my awards.

I think mark was quite clear in his point, you keep trying to go off on a tanget instead of just giving up or admitting you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You come across as a fucking child.

So enlighten me James, what do you know about Neanderthals and what they did or did not do and how your knowledge of them relates to whether or not women should be in combat infantry units.... or are you afraid to answer the question?

One would like to think that experience in the field will make clear the folly of this idea, but it's clear that one must be resigned to the fact that the followers of Progressivism (that secular belief system that aims to supplant Christianity and is experiencing great success under our current President) have no choice but to push this. Progressive doctrine foresees humans evolving socially not simply toward equal rights, but a perfect sameness. In the perfected future there shall be no rich or poor, no male or female, and it is the constant duty of the progressive to push relentlessly toward that goal. No differences can be permitted to exist, and certainly not in a massive government body like the military; unit cohesion, readiness in the field, national security, etc. all take a back seat to the quest for an end to gender distinctions. There is no present, there is only the genderless future. Resist its coming at your own professional peril.

I'm also a former Airborne Infantryman and Drill Sergeant, and even though I've met a few females that may have been able to outperform some of my weaker Soldiers, I'd have to say that I agree with Webb.

In 2003 or 2004 the Army did a study of infantry loads in Afghanistan to quantify the problem and again look for every way to reduce the weight problem. Mind you, this was because the loads were an issue for the men, not women. The findings:

So basically you had to drink "... a 12 of PBR in order to..." be man enough to present your complaints about women not serving in the infantry.

Your entire argument is a weak slippery slope. Men joint the military because they "were promised a chance to take a shot at another human being... legally." Really? So infantry men are homicidal maniacs that want to kill other people legally.

I will keep my response simple, direct, perhaps insulting, but not at all based on drinking:

I served in Iraq and know a number women that I would prefer to march into battle with than you.

I think your interpretation of what Sergeant Webb (once a Marine, always a Marine) wrote is colored by your prejudices in this matter. On an objective apples-to-apples basis, the vast majority of women simply can't physically cut it in a sustained infantry environment, let alone the environment special operations and special warfare ground units operate in.

I don't think it's a good idea to upend the infantry system based on the one woman out of 100 that might be able to cut it in infantry operations. And that's being generous when discussing the physical capabilities (nobody's disputing a woman's tactical or strategic thinking abilities) of women that would have to perform in such an environment.

Case in point: Marine Corps has been conducting an ongoing assessment of women Marine officers to evaluate their capabilities in attending its Infantry Officer Course. So far, no female Marine officer attending the course has lasted more than a few days going through the exact same physical training and "stress exes" that male hopeful Marine infantry officers undergo routinely.

Case in point: Former Soldier Jessica Lynch, universally deserving of praise for her courage as a prisoner of war during the 2003 Iraq invasion, and her support unit were taken under fire by fedayeen and Iraqi special operations members after wandering off their designated motor march route. By her own admission, Lynch was quickly taken out of the firefight, as were all other women -- most of whom were killed -- and most male Soldiers. A lone male member of the unit, as it turns out, was able to effectively repel enemy soldiers and move position-to-position, taking and returning fire until he ran out of ammo and was killed.

Lynch was later brutalized in some of the most inhumane ways imaginable, and it's an open question whether or not some of the male members of her unit moved from their own positions of (admittedly ineffective) cover to aid the female Soliders that had been rendered combat ineffective.

Bottom line: There are physical as well as psychological reasons why it's not smart to intermingle men and women in an infantry unit.

Not true. Men are physically more capable, aerobically and anaerobically, when starting out from the same physical training basis when considering the requirements of the infantry position. There's a reason why they have male and female competitive divisions in most professional sports, by the way.

Simply; more men of average capability can be trained up to infantry environment capabilities than can women, by a country mile. In other words, the vast majority of men CAN physically cut the physically grueling infantry world when properly motivated to do so. Though women might have the mental motivation to experience the infantry environment, most simply won't be able to deal with the physical demands of the job. That's not a slur against women in the military, the vast majority of whom perform in the MOSs, NECs or officer designator positions, but it's nonsensical to lower physical standards (the Army calls it "normalizing standards") that have proven to be historically and devastatingly effective in training infantry troops solely to accommodate the extremely limited number of women that may be able to serve in infantry units.

What's the point to doing so? Does it improve combat readiness and effectiveness? I can tell you, just from having had to get several Navy and Marine Corps units with female members in them ready for deployment to Somalia -- both ashore and at sea, off the coast -- that the units took longer to meet deployment mobilization and readiness standards, as we went through the endless list of female-specific mobilization assessment standards that sometimes pushed those units' deployments back by at least two weeks. Not good when you've got to grab a war bag and march to the sound of the guns.

I also saw, both ashore and at sea, many units of mixed male/female "manning" that suffered unacceptably high numbers of personnel losses from the female ranks for a wide variety of physical and mental issues that the all-male Marine and Army infantry units simply didn't suffer. Any Navy Sailor can give you an ad infinitum recitation of the ships that have either been forced off-station because too many women were lost to too many physical issues that men simply don't experience in the operational environment.

That's the dirty little secret of the Navy, and this goes back to the First Gulf War (1990-1991), when at least one Navy ship experienced an unacceptably high loss of female shipboard personnel. This issue hasn't ameliorated since then, either.

But, yes; there are plenty of men who simply don't have what it takes to cut it in the infantry world, but mainly because they're not psychologically ready to do so. I can, however, take a psychologically motivated average male and turn out a combat-effective straight-leg, and even special operations-capable, warrior. Women, even when psychologically motivated (and plenty are, of that there's no argument), are a more difficult assignment because they tend to break down much sooner in the infantry training and then potential operational environments.

As a woman, and a vet, (not a war vet) I have to disagree with the phsychology reasoning. I saw more men cry during basic training that I saw in my own female only unit. I saw more men packing up to go back to mom and we did not lose one woman to that.

My bigger concern here, would be the physical needs of a woman. What do they do when they run out of femine products (tampons) out in combat? I do know women who meet the endurance and physical carrying strenghth of men. (This would not be me at only 5'2" tall) But, these women had to go about it differently often effecting the uniformity of the unit. We would also have to train men to see the women as equals and that women's lives are no more important than their own. Men tend to instinctively protect women, and this would have to be overcome somehow or this could be a huge downfall.

to the original poster that this reply is meant for: shut up you fucking POG. This is talk about Infantry. And I can tell by the way you said "march into battle" that you're not a grunt. Probably sat in the MWR for your "deployment" to Iraq you scumbag. So have fun marching into battle with your girlfriends. I've been along side James R. Webb in combat and I'd go with him again over any woman alive. In closing, please eat a dick. Thanks.

Many thanks to Sgt Webb for his service. The royal decree has been made. I don't think keeping women out of combat is going to happen. For the reasons he sited infantry is an all male culture that has to be infiltrated , dominated , and lastly destroyed.

1. using my example above, let's say that the army can field an all female platoon of qualified (by todau's standard) troops. Ignore the fact that the demographics would have it with 4 Captains, 26 LT's, and 11 PFCs.

2. Imagine you are the male Company Commander, or the male Bn or BDE commander. Your career now rests on making sure that this platoon doesn't take losses, nor fails to achieve its objectives, nor has too many women on profile or sick call. Do they go into the standard rotation of lead platoon in your operations planning? Or do they guard the TOC? There's always a need to have a platoon guard the TOC and be the "reserve reaction force".

The author is right on the money. I have been in combat for 31 months and believe me it is no place for women. I can't imagine my daughters in combat. This social expermintation is just too unreal to imagine. Where are the people's minds who approved this stupid idea. The women are supposed to be women, not men and the war is not a place for women . They would distract men from their pimary role of killing people to look after them and that will cause loss of effectiveness in the enemy destruction mission and cause unnecessary deaths in our combat units.

As a woman who served in the military, I was well aware of what could happen to me if captured. Those women who are offended by the author, would you be offended by watching the death of your partner? Will you be offended by picking up limbs of a partner in the hopes that they can be salvaged? Will you be offended by the idea that the man next to you is dead because he was protecting a woman (you) instead of doing his job? Will you be offended when captured by the enemy and raped, then passed on and on and on to be raped repeatedly? (This does happen to captured infantry men. Imagine it happening to you.) This is real!

I believe women could serve in the infantry and do a great job, if they were kept seperate from the men. But, as a veteran myself, I saw how men were distracted by women in a commo unit. They felt the need to not only carry thier own burdens, but often carried those of the women around them. This is not fair, but it does happen. How much worse would it be if women were in infantry with these fierce, hard, and almost animalistic men? I believe more military women would even be raped by our own. Unfortunately this could be a sad truth if we mixed sexes in the infantry. (Could we have a seperate infantry unit with all women? Possibly. But women do not belong in our current infantry.)

I had no problem carrying a rucksack on my back, a duffle bag on my front, and M-16, M-60, tripod, and ammo case on my own. I did not complain once. However, I can't imagine carrying this equipment for month's at a time on my own. I am physically smaller than most men. I often fell behind in our unit runs because my legs could not stretch out as long as the men's. I made the runs, but I had to do it differently. However, I met the requirements for the male PT tests. As physically fit as I was at that time, I only stand 5'2" tall on a good day. Would I have stood a chance in hand-to hand combat against a man 6' tall? Not even a little. But, I do believe that there are women out there that could do it. But, I think that women should be seperate from the men if we are going this route in current history.

I'm realistic and proud of the fact that I served in an army commo unit. But, I am also proud of the fact that I am a woman. That I have four amazing children. I am proud to be serving my country by teaching children that will one day lead us. I am as strong as any man next to me. But, my strength is of a different type of strength. Of that I am also proud.

As someone who has been to the sharp end of battle many times I think the author is correct in what he writes. There seems to be the concept that future infantry patrols will be from the relative comfort of patrol bases as we see in Afghanistan today..short patrols of a day at the most. Now what happens when the scenario changes and we see patrols out for a month at a time as was the normal operating procedure in Vietnam. No where to wash, crapping in hastily dug latrine in the middle of the platoon harbour position because it is too dangerous to go any where else. Living in the same torn and ragged clothes for weeks on end, sometimes with your backside hanging out...dealing with invasive leeches every night that will latch onto you anywhere. This is the realm of the warrior, not a fantasy playground for would be "G.I. Jane's" Sadly the castrated sycophants in the Joint Chiefs of Staff are too busy nodding their heads and being "yes" men and pandering to the stupidity of such an idea rather than standing up for the infantrymen and saying "This is never going to happen"..

I wonder why there are no women in the NFL or on men's basketball teams... or are there, I don't follow sports? A "gifted" few women might be capable of being an effective infantrymen...or if you choose, infantrywomen; however, is it worth the overall costs (I repeat...overall costs) to have such a small number in a combat arms MOS? I might suggest...find a infantry unit that is willing to take a dozen of so females into an extended mission where endurance and the lack of privacy is paramont. Following that, the survivors should be required to testify before congress.

What should be offensive to all, regardless of gender is that this push is not about offering women equal opportunity; it is about destroying the American Military and making sure the American public will never support going to war again. The people behind this know very well that the end result will be exactly the same as if they insisted women be allowed on Division One football teams; a degredation and ultimate demise of the sport. They actually believe that by destroying the US Military they can bring about the demise of war. These people don't live in the real world and don't care who has to suffer the consequenses of their fantasies.

Okay but he is assuming women are necessarily weaker than men, not aggressive, and will fuck everything up. Which is not the case for all women and not something you can generalize. They should still hold the same standards as always by choosing the right people to make a team successful. Assuming women would never be able to fit that role is what's wrong with society and is what they're trying to change by doing this. What the job requires cannot be handled by some women, yes, correct. But it also cannot be handled by some men. Counting women out just for the sake of being women is wrong, ancient, and a mindset that will continue to foster sexism.

Let the fighting men be MEN. Allow women in support roles, but keep them off the battlefield as much as possible. There are many swimmers, but few lifeguards. I don't want to see the US military hamstrung in combat by PC "progressivism." That's not progress. It's idiocy.

Great article. As a former Marine infantryman I agree. It's time to stop social experimenting with our military. For those of you who think it is alright to have women in combat roles and who have never served you just need to stick it. And finally if you're offended. Too f'in bad

If a woman can do it, I say she does it, pure and simple. Let me put that another way: If a woman can meet the physical requirements that the men can, she should be able to do it. All I ask is that they meet the same physical requirements. I see no reason to keep people out of combat based solely on their sex. People are acting as though they will suddenly let all these tiny women out on the field. But if you use some common sense you'll realize that this isn't the case, and they sure as hell wouldn't let any tiny men out on the field either! Yes, IN GENERAL women are weaker, but it stands to reason that on a rare occasion, you will get some that aren't. And if they want to fight for the country I see no reason for them not to. If they can do it physically, everything else you say to try to keep them out is an excuse.

I have not read through all the comments and this may have been addressed, but I would like to offer another supporting element to James’s stance.

Man - the evolutionary make up

What happens to the primal male mind when he sees a female down on the battlefield versus a male down on the battle field? What chemical reactions and emotions occur that may lead to a decision outside of the playbook, driven by unfamiliar sensations that have not been accounted for in training or leadership?

"Hey you see that new PFC that check in today? Great ass."

We must also account for what “actually” happens when a young woman joins a unit; the "barracks effect" most females go through. Introducing a female into a massively testosterone driven environment causes her hormones to spike. Inevitably, most young ladies that serve find themselves in many relationships with other military men. Look at the rest of nature, we are mere beasts with iPhones.

"I'm 22, I know exactly the type of woman I want."

Next, age. We are just finding ourselves in our early twenties. The soft and malleable heart men and women possess at this stage offer deeper wounds when LCpl Sally falls favor for your roommate. The ignorance of romantic inexperience flairs and we find ourselves in the age old tale of young love and lust.

End-state

Tie the beast, the heart, and the age back into the battlefield scenario. A young Cpl of Marines sees the female Marine he fell in love with months before deployment, go down on the field. She sees the Cpl and screams his name to come help. From the flank comes the Sgt she left him for. As moments pass in this firefight, what emotions has he felt? What are some of the things he could do from here? I offer the worst case, he leaves his fire team, exposing their position and now drawing attention to himself, the Sgt and the female down. As James states, if I am on the other side of this fight, I am out to kill. I am going to focus my field of fire on this battlefield version of “the young and the restless”. Now put a fellow male Marine in the females place. This is a scenario the Cpl is trained for. If his leaders vetted weakness out of the unit correctly, he makes the right tactical and mission centric decision.

I know there are many men who would make the right decision regardless of male or female down on the field, yet why add a major element of uncertainty from a variety perspectives that can cascade into sheer catastrophe.

As an 8 year Sergeant in the Marine Corps Infantry that served with Jim Webb and considers him a friend, Combat V, 2 Combat Action Ribbons, and a Purple Heart I can say that I have spoken through Jim's report. Basically it comes down to the sheer fact that women will get other women and men alike killed in combat. The cost should not be worth the wager in order to please someone's publicity status!James Fultz

Are there women who can out maneuver, out shoot, out throw other men in combat? Yes, of course there is. Does this matter? I've served with some weak guys that I would rather have by me than the strongest, fastest woman out there. The issue is that this is combat. Its not just all about mechanics. There is a very psychological necessity in combat. Priorities on the battlefield are going to be thrown in the blender. A whole book could be written on why men and women could not serve together psychologically. Also, a woman's body cannot endure the physical harshness of the battlefield. If a woman was to menstruate on the battlefield, she can't just take a break for toiletries. It would in fact be extremely hazardous for her health. There is a whole laundry list a reasons why this integration wouldn't work. Can a woman physically perform in a firefight? Yes, but she couldn't maintain combat readiness throughout a whole deployment.

Females have no ideal what thay are asking for. I served from 1981 thru 1984. I am a small guy and it was hard for me. We lost almost. 25% of the recruits in basic. And ait. My back has a curve in it , i' ve seen my exrays. My feet get numb in the witter from 1 month in denmark in the field. It is a thing that a lot of big strong men cant handle. Black eyes and scrapes from bar fights was show and in monday formations. I carried myself differant when. I got out. My small stature and naturally easy going nature placed me , at times, as a.target . But the infantry in me would serface. They soon lear.ed that. I didn't. Talk back, i struck and faught in typical infantry fashion. People lear.ed to leave me be. I'm. And old dude now ( by militarily standards) on a job i met a infantryman that just returned from Iraq. We got along verry well. But after talking to him for awhile i realized that I nolonger have the testeron to be a good 11B. Nothing but fund memories and would do it all over in a heartbeat.

Most post here are from men that are either : not infantry , were never infantrymen, or they are on thair verry best behavior. It is a THING that we take pride in knowing that a majority of men cant do or, or refuse to do. If a woman was out with her 11b buddies and a fight broke out, are you going to jump in without thought? You are expected to. It is a world that revolves around vigilance. That is a profession whose purpose is to bring death distribution and agony on the enemy!

I first need to begin this post with a disclaimer. Not because of any offensive or controversial subject matter but because I have failed to achieve the proper mindset necessary for 'attacking' this kind of subject. Rachel

Although I served five years as a US Army officer, I never saw combat. I have, however, spent a great deal of time with combat veterans and tried to fathom this argument without bias. I agree with Mr. Webb, women serve most admirably in the military and in combat conditions. What grips me is the integration of combat units in the Army and Marine Corps infantry. His cogent points do speak to a need to preserve and foster a very important dynamic established by physical and psychological factors unique to combat units. I have also wrestled with the comparison to racial integration; but in the end I have accepted the notion that this issue is based on differences in biology.

I think it would be instructive to note how the IDF is currently conducting combat operations in Gaza. To date, over fifty-five soldiers have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Not one is a woman. And the IDF is supposedly one of the most integrated forces in the world. It's pretty obvious that actual combat units going in to root out the tunnels are comprised of only male soldiers, or the casualty rates (if no one is hiding the fact that women are getting maimed and killed) would surely reflect women deaths. So, how come IDF women are not actually involved in front-line fighting, the type of fighting that I'd expect our own forces could engage? What have the Israeli's learned over time about this issue?

In the end, I don't know if our Congressional and Pentagon leaders will study these lessons that the IDF could provide us.